Stringer et al v. Richard et al, No. 4:2021cv00632 - Document 17 (N.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/18/21. Because Defendant Bergheimer was not properly served and Defendant Richard timely filed her answer, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for default judgment. 9 (T,A)

Download PDF
Stringer et al v. Richard et al Doc. 17 Case: 4:21-cv-00632-JG Doc #: 17 Filed: 11/18/21 1 of 2. PageID #: 94 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : GAIL STRINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAWN RICHARD, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 4:21-cv-00632 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 9] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Plaintiffs Gail Stringer, Debra Jordan, Venice Andrews, and Eddie Howard sue Defendants Dawn Richard and Derek Bergheimer for copyright infringement, violation of publicity, and invasion of privacy.1 On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for default judgment against Defendants without proper service.2 On September 29, 2021, this Court directed Plaintiff to show proof of service within fourteen days. Plaintiffs again attempted to serve Defendants through certified mail. On November 8, 2021, service was return unexecuted upon Defendant Derek Bergheimer.3 On November 9, 2021, service was returned executed upon Defendant Dawn Richard.4 She was served on October 27, 2021.5 Pursuant to Rule 12, Defendant Richard’s answer was due 21 days after service, or on November 17, 2021.6 Defendant 1 Doc. 1. 2 Doc. 9. 3 Doc. 14. 4 Doc. 15. 5 Id. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Dockets.Justia.com Case: 4:21-cv-00632-JG Doc #: 17 Filed: 11/18/21 2 of 2. PageID #: 95 Case No. 4:21-cv-00632 GWIN, J. Richard timely filed her answer on November 16, 2021.7 Because Defendant Bergheimer was not properly served and Defendant Richard timely filed her answer, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Dated: November 18, 2021 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 Doc. 16. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.